Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
No. People are using EcmaScript on the web. They have languages that compile to EcmaScript as an intermediate language. Dart could also do this (emscripten demonstrates that raw C can be compiled to EcmaScript), so if people wished they could do that. These are also not a significant proportion of websites at all. If we were to decide to support one of these natively it would make sense to support the most popular and widely used languages, but currently none of the languages that compile to ES have made any significant headway -- mostly because ES is actually a pretty good language (yes it has rough edges, but the same is true of _all_ languages). Adding direct and exposed support for a non-standard language is hostile to the open-web by skipping any form "consensus" driven language development that might happen (say the path taken by json2.js -> the native JSON object), and foisting whatever language we want on the web instead. This implicitly puts any browser that supports additional proprietary extensions in the same position as a browser supporting something like vbscript, and has the same effect: breaking the open web by making content that only works effectively in a single product. For example back in the 90s Netscape had a feature called "layers" any browser could display the pages, but they would only look "good" in netscape. If we were to natively support some other language on the web say OliversAwesomeWebLanguage, and provided a tool to compile OAWL to ES any site that used OAWL would perform significantly worse on other browsers than on our own (this is a given as the only argument in favour of native support vs. compilation to JS is that native support is meant faster than going through JS). If OAWL did become a big enough platform then other vendors _might_ end up reversing engineering it and reimplementing it themselves, put us back in the position of the 90s browsers and the many variants of what is now called EcmaScript. On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Vijay Menon wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: >> >> The issue here isn't "can we make multiple vms live in webkit" it's "can we >> expose multiple languages to the web", to the former i say obviously as we >> already do, to the latter I say that we don't want to. > > People are already using multiple languages on the web. E.g., > https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS. > Native runtime support is a natural next step. > > WebKit does support multiple VMs, but it does not support them > concurrently at runtime. That is essentially what we want to enable. WebKit does support multiple bindings concurrently at runtime -- a lot of mac clients make use of the obj-c dom bindings while JS is executing, some also make use of the JS<->ObjC bridge so that you have two different sets of bindings for the same objects at the same time, being used together in beautiful harmony ;) > > Cheers, > > Vijay --Oliver ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
Good day, everyone! I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the browser. Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + Dart) in the first place. And we're not only talking about the browsers proper, our hope was, for example, that people embedding WebKit into apps may benefit from hopefully tight integration or, another idea, if we can provide better isolation for JS proper using similar approach. And sure, this patch--- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73897 ---is only a tiny step in this direction---Fillip is absolutely right that integrating several GCing VMs is tricky---we're pretty much aware of this and hope we can address this, but, again, the patch is only initial infrastructure to enable more than a single runtime. If consensus in the community is nobody needs more than JS runtime in the browser (for any reason), so it be---we looked for feedback from the community and we got it. If the community response is idea is good, but you need to account for..., great, we're happy to do that. Maybe it'll make this patch feel less experimental and Geoff would be less reluctant to see it on the branch. And I can definitely understand concerns which are raised by Dart in the browser, but I really hope it's a separate issue. Thank you very much all for your feedback! yours, anton. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > No. People are using EcmaScript on the web. > > They have languages that compile to EcmaScript as an intermediate language. > Dart could also do this (emscripten demonstrates that raw C can be compiled > to EcmaScript), so if people wished they could do that. These are also not a > significant proportion of websites at all. If we were to decide to support > one of these natively it would make sense to support the most popular and > widely used languages, but currently none of the languages that compile to ES > have made any significant headway -- mostly because ES is actually a pretty > good language (yes it has rough edges, but the same is true of _all_ > languages). > > Adding direct and exposed support for a non-standard language is hostile to > the open-web by skipping any form "consensus" driven language development > that might happen (say the path taken by json2.js -> the native JSON object), > and foisting whatever language we want on the web instead. > This implicitly puts any browser that supports additional proprietary > extensions in the same position as a browser supporting something like > vbscript, and has the same effect: breaking the open web by making content > that only works effectively in a single product. > > For example back in the 90s Netscape had a feature called "layers" any > browser could display the pages, but they would only look "good" in netscape. > If we were to natively support some other language on the web say > OliversAwesomeWebLanguage, and provided a tool to compile OAWL to ES any site > that used OAWL would perform significantly worse on other browsers than on > our own (this is a given as the only argument in favour of native support vs. > compilation to JS is that native support is meant faster than going through > JS). > > If OAWL did become a big enough platform then other vendors _might_ end up > reversing engineering it and reimplementing it themselves, put us back in the > position of the 90s browsers and the many variants of what is now called > EcmaScript. > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Vijay Menon wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: >>> >>> The issue here isn't "can we make multiple vms live in webkit" it's "can we >>> expose multiple languages to the web", to the former i say obviously as we >>> already do, to the latter I say that we don't want to. >> >> People are already using multiple languages on the web. E.g., >> https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS. >> Native runtime support is a natural next step. >> >> WebKit does support multiple VMs, but it does not support them >> concurrently at runtime. That is essentially what we want to enable. > > WebKit does support multiple bindings concurrently at runtime -- a lot of mac > clients make use of the obj-c dom bindings while JS is executing, some also > make use of the JS<->ObjC bridge so that you have two different sets of > bindings for the same objects at the same time, being used together in > beautiful harmony ;) > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Vijay > > --Oliver > ___ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev ___
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
Hi Anton, > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > browser. and they mostly replied to that (including some solution ideas like converting your language to JS. You might even see some speedup :) ). > Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our > intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is > any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + > Dart) in the first place. The question they raised was what we need to sacrifice for this support. JS is heavily tied with WK internals, lots of JS specific things everywhere (yeah, you can change the JS engine in WK, but only to another JS engine). Change that to something general affects maintenance (new abstraction layers / API) and performance (probably memory as well), and its drawbacks are unknown yet (and its advantages are questionable), especially in a mixed environment. I think you should start this work in a private branch (code.google.com?) and tell us your experiences later. It is difficult to judge this feature at the moment. Regards, Zoltan ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
> > Could you post a complete patch of your multi-vm changes to a WebKit > bug? I final chromium's diff viewer very difficult to use. > Multi-vm changes broken into 4 patches: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73897 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73899 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73903 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73906 > > Regardless of whether this is good for the web or not, some of your > multi-vm changes may be nice to have in WebCore. > > -eric > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: > > Looking at http://www.webkit.org/projects/goals.html, I see: > > > > Goals > > > > …. > > Hackability > > To make rapid progress possible, we try to keep the code relatively easy > to > > understand…. > > > > Non-Goals > > > > …. > > WebKit is an engineering project not a science project.For new features > to > > be adopted into WebKit, we strongly prefer for the technology or at least > > the use case for it to be proven. > > > > It sounds like you're proposing a change to the goals of the WebKit > project > > -- namely, to use a branch in the WebKit project as a substrate for > > experiments with new technologies, including new technologies that might > > negatively impact hackability. Is that right? > > > > Geoff > > > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Vijay Menon wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Many languages compile to JavaScript today to run on the web. As > > alternative, we’ve been experimenting with enabling different language > > runtimes in WebKit to run in web pages alongside JavaScript. > > > > This could be used to support languages like Python, Java, Ruby, Lua, or > - > > what inspired us - Dart (www.dartlang.org). > > > > Some reasons to consider additional runtimes include: > > > > - Speed. Many languages are faster than JavaScript when run natively > and/or > > do not compile to JavaScript efficiently. > > - Developer choice. Another runtime provides developers with more choice > > without requiring them to use a toolchain. > > - Development experience. Languages supported directly in the browser > can > > have a significantly better debugging and profiling experience than they > can > > with compiled code. > > > > We have a quite early patch of this work available here: > > > > - multi-vm changes: http://codereview.chromium.org/8806015/ > > - dart bindings: http://codereview.chromium.org/8802010/ > > > > We’re planning to create a multi-vm branch on webkit.org to experiment > with > > this idea. Our goal with this branch is to (a) demonstrate the above > points > > and (b) show that we can do this without degrading JavaScript > performance or > > the WebKit development experience. If successful, we’d like to submit > these > > changes to WebKit trunk. We welcome your feedback. > > > > Regards, > > > > Anton Muhin > > Pavel Podivilov > > Vijay Menon > > > > ___ > > webkit-dev mailing list > > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > > > > > > > ___ > > webkit-dev mailing list > > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > > ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: > Good day, everyone! > > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > browser. > > Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our > intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is > any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + > Dart) in the first place. > > And we're not only talking about the browsers proper, our hope was, > for example, that people embedding WebKit into apps may benefit from > hopefully tight integration or, another idea, if we can provide better > isolation for JS proper using similar approach. > > And sure, this patch--- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73897 > ---is only a tiny step in this direction---Fillip is absolutely right > that integrating several GCing VMs is tricky---we're pretty much aware > of this and hope we can address this, but, again, the patch is only > initial infrastructure to enable more than a single runtime. > > If consensus in the community is nobody needs more than JS runtime in > the browser (for any reason), so it be---we looked for feedback from > the community and we got it. If the community response is idea is > good, but you need to account for..., great, we're happy to do that. > Maybe it'll make this patch feel less experimental and Geoff would be > less reluctant to see it on the branch. > It would be easier to just host the branch in a mirror somewhere else, continue experiments there, and report back to the community. Many others do this, e.g., Samsung and WebCL. > > And I can definitely understand concerns which are raised by Dart in > the browser, but I really hope it's a separate issue. > > Thank you very much all for your feedback! > > yours, > anton. > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > > No. People are using EcmaScript on the web. > > > > They have languages that compile to EcmaScript as an intermediate > language. Dart could also do this (emscripten demonstrates that raw C can > be compiled to EcmaScript), so if people wished they could do that. These > are also not a significant proportion of websites at all. If we were to > decide to support one of these natively it would make sense to support the > most popular and widely used languages, but currently none of the languages > that compile to ES have made any significant headway -- mostly because ES > is actually a pretty good language (yes it has rough edges, but the same is > true of _all_ languages). > > > > Adding direct and exposed support for a non-standard language is hostile > to the open-web by skipping any form "consensus" driven language > development that might happen (say the path taken by json2.js -> the native > JSON object), and foisting whatever language we want on the web instead. > > This implicitly puts any browser that supports additional proprietary > extensions in the same position as a browser supporting something like > vbscript, and has the same effect: breaking the open web by making content > that only works effectively in a single product. > > > > For example back in the 90s Netscape had a feature called "layers" any > browser could display the pages, but they would only look "good" in > netscape. If we were to natively support some other language on the web > say OliversAwesomeWebLanguage, and provided a tool to compile OAWL to ES > any site that used OAWL would perform significantly worse on other browsers > than on our own (this is a given as the only argument in favour of native > support vs. compilation to JS is that native support is meant faster than > going through JS). > > > > If OAWL did become a big enough platform then other vendors _might_ end > up reversing engineering it and reimplementing it themselves, put us back > in the position of the 90s browsers and the many variants of what is now > called EcmaScript. > > > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Vijay Menon wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > >>> > >>> The issue here isn't "can we make multiple vms live in webkit" it's > "can we > >>> expose multiple languages to the web", to the former i say obviously > as we > >>> already do, to the latter I say that we don't want to. > >> > >> People are already using multiple languages on the web. E.g., > >> > https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS > . > >> Native runtime support is a natural next step. > >> > >> WebKit does support multiple VMs, but it does not support them > >> concurrently at runtime. That is essentially what we want to enable. > > > > WebKit does support multiple bindings concurrently at runtime -- a lot > of mac clients make use of the obj-c dom bindings while JS is executing, > some also make use of the JS<->ObjC bridge so that you have two diff
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
Good day, Zoltan, On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Zoltan Herczeg wrote: > Hi Anton, > >> Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our >> intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is >> any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + >> Dart) in the first place. > > The question they raised was what we need to sacrifice for this support. > JS is heavily tied with WK internals, lots of JS specific things > everywhere (yeah, you can change the JS engine in WK, but only to another > JS engine). Change that to something general affects maintenance (new > abstraction layers / API) and performance (probably memory as well), and > its drawbacks are unknown yet (and its advantages are questionable), > especially in a mixed environment. I absolutely share this concern. We really hope (and hopefully patch proves it), that as of now, burden is minimal: outside of bindings, we only touch a handful of stuff: 1) Source/WebCore/dom/ScriptElement.cpp: to tag ScriptSourceCode with mimetype (+10 trivial lines imho) 2) and changes in inspector. AFAIK, some of them are beneficial on its own, while others are more related with devtools support for other languages (Objective-C dev tools anyone :). And no full fledged abstraction levels, just a couple of reasonable (I am biased, I know) interfaces. And we did preliminary experiments on perf impact and found no perf implications for mutli-vm patch by itself. I don't want to say we have no burden, any change has, but if there is a minimal merit in multi-vm support, I believe the burden is minimal enough. > > I think you should start this work in a private branch (code.google.com?) > and tell us your experiences later. It is difficult to judge this feature > at the moment. What would you recommend as a measure of success? Something we can report back and ask if we're ready? We're definitely considering hosting the work in some other place and have no technical difficulties with this. We just want to be as close to the WebKit community as possible. Thanks again for your thoughts, anton. ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
Thanks a lot, Jarred. We're fine w/ hosting in other repo (but we'll be happier to live close to the WebKit). What would you suggest as a measure of success for this extra-repo branch? yours, anton. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: >> >> Good day, everyone! >> >> I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, >> but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a >> patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the >> browser. >> >> Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our >> intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is >> any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + >> Dart) in the first place. >> >> And we're not only talking about the browsers proper, our hope was, >> for example, that people embedding WebKit into apps may benefit from >> hopefully tight integration or, another idea, if we can provide better >> isolation for JS proper using similar approach. >> >> And sure, this patch--- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73897 >> ---is only a tiny step in this direction---Fillip is absolutely right >> that integrating several GCing VMs is tricky---we're pretty much aware >> of this and hope we can address this, but, again, the patch is only >> initial infrastructure to enable more than a single runtime. >> >> If consensus in the community is nobody needs more than JS runtime in >> the browser (for any reason), so it be---we looked for feedback from >> the community and we got it. If the community response is idea is >> good, but you need to account for..., great, we're happy to do that. >> Maybe it'll make this patch feel less experimental and Geoff would be >> less reluctant to see it on the branch. > > > It would be easier to just host the branch in a mirror somewhere else, > continue experiments there, and report back to the community. Many others > do this, e.g., Samsung and WebCL. > >> >> >> And I can definitely understand concerns which are raised by Dart in >> the browser, but I really hope it's a separate issue. >> >> Thank you very much all for your feedback! >> >> yours, >> anton. >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote: >> > No. People are using EcmaScript on the web. >> > >> > They have languages that compile to EcmaScript as an intermediate >> > language. Dart could also do this (emscripten demonstrates that raw C can >> > be compiled to EcmaScript), so if people wished they could do that. These >> > are also not a significant proportion of websites at all. If we were to >> > decide to support one of these natively it would make sense to support the >> > most popular and widely used languages, but currently none of the languages >> > that compile to ES have made any significant headway -- mostly because ES >> > is >> > actually a pretty good language (yes it has rough edges, but the same is >> > true of _all_ languages). >> > >> > Adding direct and exposed support for a non-standard language is hostile >> > to the open-web by skipping any form "consensus" driven language >> > development >> > that might happen (say the path taken by json2.js -> the native JSON >> > object), and foisting whatever language we want on the web instead. >> > This implicitly puts any browser that supports additional proprietary >> > extensions in the same position as a browser supporting something like >> > vbscript, and has the same effect: breaking the open web by making content >> > that only works effectively in a single product. >> > >> > For example back in the 90s Netscape had a feature called "layers" any >> > browser could display the pages, but they would only look "good" in >> > netscape. If we were to natively support some other language on the web >> > say >> > OliversAwesomeWebLanguage, and provided a tool to compile OAWL to ES any >> > site that used OAWL would perform significantly worse on other browsers >> > than >> > on our own (this is a given as the only argument in favour of native >> > support >> > vs. compilation to JS is that native support is meant faster than going >> > through JS). >> > >> > If OAWL did become a big enough platform then other vendors _might_ end >> > up reversing engineering it and reimplementing it themselves, put us back >> > in >> > the position of the 90s browsers and the many variants of what is now >> > called >> > EcmaScript. >> > >> > On Dec 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Vijay Menon wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The issue here isn't "can we make multiple vms live in webkit" it's >> >>> "can we >> >>> expose multiple languages to the web", to the former i say obviously >> >>> as we >> >>> already do, to the latter I say that we don't want to. >> >> >> >> People are already using multiple languages on the web. E.g., >> >> >> >> https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: > Thanks a lot, Jarred. > > We're fine w/ hosting in other repo (but we'll be happier to live > close to the WebKit). What would you suggest as a measure of success > for this extra-repo branch? > I think that's a fair question. Based on current dialogue, there are some points to be proven such as no performance degradation or large increase of memory consumption to run the status quo, hackability, etc. Posting the patches was a good first step to viewing the changes, but the separate repo would allow those interested to follow along without the worries (on both sides) of how the separate branch affects WebKit proper. From the performance/memory standpoint, one good measure of success is empirical evidence that neither are compromised when running the current VMs. Even if no additional VMs are supported in WebKit proper, I understand the benefits to having the interface available for other consumers of the engine in closed/embedded scenarios, regardless of the controversial issues of what's best for the open web (it reminds me of the controversies around supported video codecs for the element and what a nightmare that is for the open web). I'm fairly new to the WebKit community myself, so I'm just suggesting what I would do that would be frictionless :) > > yours, > anton. > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Jarred Nicholls wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: > >> > >> Good day, everyone! > >> > >> I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > >> but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > >> patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > >> browser. > >> > >> Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our > >> intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is > >> any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + > >> Dart) in the first place. > >> > >> And we're not only talking about the browsers proper, our hope was, > >> for example, that people embedding WebKit into apps may benefit from > >> hopefully tight integration or, another idea, if we can provide better > >> isolation for JS proper using similar approach. > >> > >> And sure, this patch--- https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73897 > >> ---is only a tiny step in this direction---Fillip is absolutely right > >> that integrating several GCing VMs is tricky---we're pretty much aware > >> of this and hope we can address this, but, again, the patch is only > >> initial infrastructure to enable more than a single runtime. > >> > >> If consensus in the community is nobody needs more than JS runtime in > >> the browser (for any reason), so it be---we looked for feedback from > >> the community and we got it. If the community response is idea is > >> good, but you need to account for..., great, we're happy to do that. > >> Maybe it'll make this patch feel less experimental and Geoff would be > >> less reluctant to see it on the branch. > > > > > > It would be easier to just host the branch in a mirror somewhere else, > > continue experiments there, and report back to the community. Many > others > > do this, e.g., Samsung and WebCL. > > > >> > >> > >> And I can definitely understand concerns which are raised by Dart in > >> the browser, but I really hope it's a separate issue. > >> > >> Thank you very much all for your feedback! > >> > >> yours, > >> anton. > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > >> > No. People are using EcmaScript on the web. > >> > > >> > They have languages that compile to EcmaScript as an intermediate > >> > language. Dart could also do this (emscripten demonstrates that raw > C can > >> > be compiled to EcmaScript), so if people wished they could do that. > These > >> > are also not a significant proportion of websites at all. If we were > to > >> > decide to support one of these natively it would make sense to > support the > >> > most popular and widely used languages, but currently none of the > languages > >> > that compile to ES have made any significant headway -- mostly > because ES is > >> > actually a pretty good language (yes it has rough edges, but the same > is > >> > true of _all_ languages). > >> > > >> > Adding direct and exposed support for a non-standard language is > hostile > >> > to the open-web by skipping any form "consensus" driven language > development > >> > that might happen (say the path taken by json2.js -> the native JSON > >> > object), and foisting whatever language we want on the web instead. > >> > This implicitly puts any browser that supports additional proprietary > >> > extensions in the same position as a browser supporting something like > >> > vbscript, and has the same effect: breaking the open web by making > content > >> > that only works effectively in a single product. > >> > > >> > For example back in the 90s Netscape had a feature calle
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On 12/6/11 4:23 AM, Zoltan Herczeg wrote: > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > browser. and they mostly replied to that (including some solution ideas like converting your language to JS. You might even see some speedup They're already in that position with Dart, translating source code into JS. I think there's some real benefit long term going down this route, working on WebKit's flexibility, because LLVM is turning into a real option for the web. Taking this back to the "engineering" purpose. LLVM works. It's not complete yet, but it works. There are two very workable targets: PNaCl and Emscripten. emscripten as a target is pure JS and supported by modern browsers. https://github.com/kripken/emscripten http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client/trunk/src/native_client/pnacl/ There is good reason to consider native code execution: it will run faster than emscripten. -Charles ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On Dec 6, 2011, at 2:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: > Good day, everyone! > > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > browser. > > Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our > intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is > any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + > Dart) in the first place. As I have already said, we already support multiple bindings being in use at the same time. Continuing to claim that is your goal is not helpful. Your goal is to allow additional non-standard languages to be provided by webcontent. This is an academic exercise as it doesn't match webkit's goal of being a standards compliant engine, and also has dubious advantage even when supported -- as Vijay said multiple languages already compile to EcmaScript, there is no reason that Dart can't as well. So even if it turns out that this can be implemented without regressing performance of those parts of webkit responsible for supporting open standards, it has a maintenance burden required to support a "feature" that has no business being in webkit. --Oliver ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
[webkit-dev] For debugging in xcode - Breakpoint does not work.
Hello. I am a new to mac. Can anyone help me for debugging WebCore? I have a problem about breakpoint with xcode. What I want to say, I can't use a breakpoint with WebCore in the xcode. After finish to build webkit, I put a breakpoint to the DOMWindow.cpp (I put a breakpoint to DOMWindow::alert and make a alert for testing) But breakpoint does work. I did googling for this... I found below solution. but It doesn't work too. 1. Launch safari. 2. Run -> attach to process -> select WebProcess (My XCODE version is 3.2.6) 3. Click debug in the WebCore project window. Did I make wrong? or have I to do anything else? Thanks in advance Kihong ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 2:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: > > > Good day, everyone! > > > > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > > browser. > > > > Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our > > intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is > > any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + > > Dart) in the first place. > As I have already said, we already support multiple bindings being in use > at the same time. Those bindings are different because the code that uses them is not activated from web pages. Looking at the specific posted patches, those changes seem necessary to support activating a different language from a page eg
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 2:55 AM, Anton Muhin wrote: > > > Good day, everyone! > > > > I am sorry if it didn't sound clear enough in our original message, > > but we're not proposing a new language support, but we're proposing a > > patch which allows others runtimes to run along with JS in the > > browser. > > > > Of course, we're doing this because of our work on Dart, but our > > intent was to solicit a feedback from the WebKit community if there is > > any interest in supporting runtimes additional to JS (and not JS + > > Dart) in the first place. > As I have already said, we already support multiple bindings being in use at > the same time. > > Those bindings are different because the code that uses them is not activated > from web pages. Looking at the specific posted patches, those changes seem > necessary to support activating a different language from a page eg
Re: [webkit-dev] WebKit branch to support multiple VMs (e.g., Dart)
On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:53 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: >> >> Those bindings are different because the code that uses them is not >> activated from web pages. Looking at the specific posted patches, those >> changes seem necessary to support activating a different language from a >> page eg
